From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-12-15 08:14:20
"Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> Which is the default? If I just compile against the Boost.Test
>> headers will it work, or do I need to set some #define?
> There is no default. You could use either of them. It all depends on what
> header you are including
> Test module with
> #include <boost/test/unit_test.hpp>
> Will need an offline library
> The same test module but with
> #include <boost/test/included/unit_test.hpp>
> won't need an offline library.
Hmm, okay. I'd have done that with a preprocessor switch so when
people decide to start using the separate binary they don't have to
change their source files... but it's your party.
>> Are you just saying that if you want to test Boost, you'll need the
>> separate Boost.Test binary? I don't see why that would matter one bit
>> to the reader, since it's built automatically and on demand by the
>> build system when you run the tests.
> I don't share yet your optimism on expecting all Boost users to learn and
> use Boost.Build system.
I don't have any such optimism. I just don't expect anyone to be able
to successfully run Boost unit tests without Boost.Build, and even if
some few people could succeed at it, I wouldn't want to discuss that
case in this document.
>>> 2. It's not required but recommended to precompile at least UTF
> The UTF is comparatively heavyweight component. Would you prefer
> Boost.Python users to include all your sources into their project and
> compile them every time?
I don't care; whatever works for my users works for me.
> That's why I say it's preferable in a long term to build standalone
> library. I do provide an "included" option, but mostly as a helper
> for the "very hurry" users.
OK, thanks for clarifying.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk